Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: A Reanalysis of Data From Three Field Tests in Manhattan [New York City], New York, 1987, 1995-1997 (ICPSR 25925)

In the mid-1980s New York City officials developed an intervention program, the Domestic Violence Intervention Education Project (DVIEP), to reduce repeat incidents of family abuse. The program posited that repeat victimization would decline as victims extracted themselves from self-defeating relationships or by working with social services and criminal justice staff to develop strategies to end the abuse while staying in the relationship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the DVIEP model in reducing repeat instances of family violence. Between 1987 and 1997, three separate, randomized field experiments in New York City's public housing projects evaluated whether or not the DVIEP program reduced the rate of subsequent victimization. All three studies tested the same intervention model: persons who reported family violence to the police were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a follow-up visit from a domestic violence prevention police officer and a social worker. For this study, researchers concatenated the micro data from the 3 experiments into a single, 1,037 case dataset that contains identical treatment and control measures, and nearly identical outcome measures. Of the 1,037 total cases in the study, 434 are from the 1987 Domestic Violence Study, 406 are from the Elder Abuse study, EFFECTIVENESS OF A JOINT POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO ELDER ABUSE IN MANHATTAN [NEW YORK CITY], NEW YORK, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3130), and 197 are from the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study in Manhattan's Police Services Area 2 (PSA2). The resulting data collection contains a total of 31 variables including which study (1987 Domestic Violence Study, Elder Abuse Study, or Domestic Violence Arrestee Study) the respondent participated in, whether the respondent was part of the experimental group or the control group, whether the respondent received public education or a home visit by a DVIEP team, the number of DVIEP services the respondent used, and whether the respondent completed a final interview with a DVIEP team after six months of tracking. Additionally, variables include the victim's age, whether the perpetrator of domestic abuse was a romantic partner of the victim, the number of incidents reported to the police, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) violence score, and the number of days until the first new incident of domestic abuse.

In the mid-1980s New York City officials developed an intervention program, the Domestic Violence Intervention Education Project (DVIEP), to reduce repeat incidents of family abuse. The program posited that repeat victimization would decline as victims extracted themselves from self-defeating relationships or by working with social services and criminal justice staff to develop strategies to end the abuse while staying in the relationship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the DVIEP model in reducing repeat instances of family violence. Between 1987 and 1997, three separate, randomized field experiments in New York City's public housing projects evaluated whether or not the DVIEP program reduced the rate of subsequent victimization. All three studies tested the same intervention model: persons who reported family violence to the police were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a follow-up visit from a domestic violence prevention police officer and a social worker. For this study, researchers concatenated the micro data from the 3 experiments into a single, 1,037 case dataset that contains identical treatment and control measures, and nearly identical outcome measures. Of the 1,037 total cases in the study, 434 are from the 1987 Domestic Violence Study, 406 are from the Elder Abuse study, EFFECTIVENESS OF A JOINT POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO ELDER ABUSE IN MANHATTAN [NEW YORK CITY], NEW YORK, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3130), and 197 are from the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study in Manhattan's Police Services Area 2 (PSA2). The resulting data collection contains a total of 31 variables including which study (1987 Domestic Violence Study, Elder Abuse Study, or Domestic Violence Arrestee Study) the respondent participated in, whether the respondent was part of the experimental group or the control group, whether the respondent received public education or a home visit by a DVIEP team, the number of DVIEP services the respondent used, and whether the respondent completed a final interview with a DVIEP team after six months of tracking. Additionally, variables include the victim's age, whether the perpetrator of domestic abuse was a romantic partner of the victim, the number of incidents reported to the police, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) violence score, and the number of days until the first new incident of domestic abuse.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Dataset(s)

Study Description

Citation

Davis, Robert C., and Christopher D. Maxwell. Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: A Reanalysis of Data From Three Field Tests in Manhattan [New York City], New York, 1987, 1995-1997. ICPSR25925-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2011-03-21. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25925.v1

Users are encouraged to refer to the final report cited in the "Related Literature" section of this study for more detailed information about each of the three studies.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
In the mid-1980s New York City officials developed an intervention program, the Domestic Violence Intervention Education Project (DVIEP), to reduce repeat incidents of family abuse. The program posited that repeat victimization would decline as victims extracted themselves from self-defeating relationships or by working with social services and criminal justice staff to develop strategies to end the abuse while staying in the relationship. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the DVIEP model in reducing repeat instances of family violence.

Study Design:

Between 1987 and 1997, three separate, randomized field experiments in New York City's public housing projects evaluated whether or not the Domestic Violence Intervention Education Project (DVIEP) program reduced the rate of subsequent victimization. All three studies tested the same intervention model: persons who reported family violence to the police were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a follow-up visit from a domestic violence prevention police officer and a social worker. The police officer and social worker followed the DVIEP model, which helps victims work with social services and criminal justice staff to develop strategies to end the abuse while staying in their relationships.

For this study, researchers concatenated the micro data from the 3 experiments into a single, 1,037 case dataset that contains identical treatment and control measures, and nearly identical outcome measures. Of the 1,037 total cases in the study, 434 are from the 1987 Domestic Violence Study, 406 are from the Elder Abuse Study, EFFECTIVENESS OF A JOINT POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO ELDER ABUSE IN MANHATTAN [NEW YORK CITY], NEW YORK, 1996-1997 (ICPSR 3130), and 197 are from the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study in Manhattan's Police Services Area 2 (PSA2).

For the 1987 Domestic Violence Study, 436 households that reported incidents of domestic violence within the designated public housing projects were randomly assigned either to receive follow-up home visits or to a control condition. Additionally, some households also received public education intervention, consisting of a
leafleting and poster campaign and presentations at community and tenant association meetings. The research team tracked both groups for additional calls for police services over the next six months. At the end of the tracking period, researchers attempted to interview victims to ask about new abuse, about satisfaction with the police response, and about the victims' knowledge and use of social services.

For the Elder Abuse Study, public housing projects in Manhattan were assigned to either receive or not receive public education. Additionally, 403 households that reported incidents of elder abuse within the study's designated public housing projects were assigned to receive a home visit or to be part of the control group. Researchers followed up on domestic violence complaints with a home visit within a few days of the initial patrol response, 6 weeks after the trigger incident, 6 months after the trigger incident, and 12 months after the trigger incident.

The third study, the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study (PSA2) involved only a follow-up home visit intervention that assigned the households to either receive a home visit or to be part of the control group. There was no public education component to the study. The experiment, also conducted in a public housing setting, involved 197 family violence victims. While the 1987 Domestic Violence Study and the Elder Abuse Study selected all incidents reported to the police, regardless of the nature of the criminal justice intervention, the PSA2 Study relied only on cases that involved an arrest. The researchers collected similar data to those from the other two experiments, namely new incidents reported on surveys or reported to law enforcement agencies six months after the trigger incident.

Sample:

A total of 1,037 cases of family violence comprise the final sample including 434 cases from the 1987 Domestic Violence Study, 406 cases from the Elder Abuse Study, and 197 cases from the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study in Manhattan's Police Services Area 2 (PSA2).

Specifically, for the 1987 Domestic Violence Study, 64 public housing projects (total population 93,000) were matched in pairs for size and demographic characteristics (projects ranged in size from 100 households to more than 2,000 households). The projects were all within the bounds of Manhattan's 23rd, 25th, and 32nd precincts. One member of each pair was randomly assigned to receive the public education intervention and the other served as a control.

Households that reported incidents of domestic violence within the designated public housing projects were randomly assigned either to receive follow-up home visits or to a control condition. The types of reported incidents of domestic violence include romantic intimates, children abusing parents, and others (primarily siblings abusing other siblings). The final sample in the data includes 227 cases in the experimental group and 207 cases in the control group.

The Elder Abuse Study incorporated dual sampling frames to assess the effects of the public education and follow-up home visit interventions. A total of 60 public housing projects in the borough of Manhattan located within 3 Police Service Areas (PSAs) comprised the sampling frame for the public education intervention. PSA4 covers all of lower Manhattan; PSA5 covers mid-town to 125th Street; and PSA6 covers 125th Street to the Northern tip of Manhattan.

The sampling frame for the follow-up home visit included residents of the 60 housing projects aged 55 years or older. Eligible cases consisted of those classified by police as domestic incidents involving persons aged 55 years and older, who reported an incident of elder abuse to the police between January 1, 1996, and October 30, 1996. Some cases were dropped because they did not meet the study's requirements. The majority of the cases dropped were child custody disagreements or cases classified as unfounded. Other reasons for dropping cases were language barriers, incorrect documentation of age, incorrect documentation of address, and errors in the police report. The final sample in the data includes 210 cases in the experimental group and 196 cases in the control group.

For the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study, the sampling frame consisted of all family violence arrests by the police in Manhattan's PSA2 Housing Police district between October 20, 1995, and June 2, 1996. During the sampling period, all PSA2 family violence arrests were assigned to receive a home visit or to the control group. The final sample in the data includes 122 cases in the experimental group and 75 in the control group.

Description of Variables:
This study contains a total of 31 variables including data on which study [1987 Domestic Violence Study, Elder Abuse Study, or Domestic Violence Arrestee Study in Manhattan's Police Services Area 2 (PSA2)] the respondent participated in, whether the respondent was part of the experimental group or the control group for the study, whether the respondent received public education or a home visit by a team from the Domestic Violence Intervention and Education Program (DVIEP), the number of DVIEP services the respondent used, and whether the respondent completed a final interview with a DVIEP team after 6 months of tracking. Additionally, variables include the victim's age, whether the perpetrator of domestic abuse was a romantic partner of the victim, the number of incidents reported to the police, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) violence score, and the number of days until the first new incident of domestic abuse.

Response Rates:
Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales:
The Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS)(Straus) was used for the 1987 Domestic Violence Study and the Domestic Violence Arrestee Study in Manhattan's Police Services Area 2 (PSA2).

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).